🚀 go-pugleaf

On Dec 20, 7:00 am, Terranaut <cy_pur...@excite.com> wrote:
> On Dec 20, 7:40 am, "Redman" <redman1...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > "creusa" <suewhiteman2...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>
> >news:b1634eb4-7e23-41ad-a097-763310c88c8b@v4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> > On 20 Dec, 07:31, "Redman" <redman1...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
> > > <leonard7...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > >news:62c1e9ba-5e72-4dce-89cf-3856e052edef@x69g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...
> > > On Dec 19, 1:59 pm, Siobhan Medeiros <sbm2...@shaw.ca> wrote:
>
> > > > On Dec 19, 3:50 am, leonard7...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > > > CLIMATE FACTS THE HYSTERICS WANT YOU TO OVERLOOK
> > > > > First posted 05.15.07
>
> > > > >  a.. The temperature effect of atmospheric carbon dioxide is
> > > > > logarithmic, not
> > > > > exponential.
>
> > > > So's the Richter Scale, so what?
>
> > > > >   b.. The potential planetary warming from a doubling of atmospheric
> > > > > carbon
> > > > > dioxide from pre-Industrial Revolution levels of ~280ppmv to 560ppmv
> > > > > (possible
> > > > > some time later this century - perhaps) is generally estimated at less
> > > > > than 1
> > > > > °C.
>
> > > > I don't know where you're getting this from, but it's not true.
> > > > Currently, we've gone from 320 ppm to 280ppm, and we've had about 0,6C
> > > > increase.  If that's caused by a 15% increase, what do you think's
> > > > going to happen after a 100% increase.
>
> > > ***** Read your paragraph above and tell me that you
> > >          are not all screwed up. <GG>
>
> > > > We could have fixed this long ago if you rightards hadn't been running
> > > > interference for the oil industry.
>
> > > ***** The oil industry needs no help. It stands to be a
> > >          big winner, no matter what.
>
> > > ***** However you fascist screwballs are attempting
> > >         to screw up something that needs no fixing, just
> > >         so you can be politically correct. Only fascist
> > >         arrogance allows you to think that feeble man can
> > >         alter the passage of the cosmos even one iota.
>
> > > --- ---
> > >      So far neither IPCC nor anyone else has provided
> > >      one iota of valid data for global warming nor have
> > >      they provided data that climate change is being
> > >      effected by commerce and industry, and not by
> > >      natural phenomena.
>
> > > Hear Hear spot on Leonard
>
> > > Redman- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > The proof that is needed is by going to Antarctica and watching sheets
> > of ice thousands of years old and hundreds of feet thick, falling into
> > the sea. or seeing glaciers hundreds of miles long, shrinking by huge
> > percentages of itself back up valleys.
> > You can argue science all you want...
> > reality says the continued increase inn ice water in the North
> > Atllantic will eventually turn the Atlantic conveyor further south.
> > This will move the warming effect of the currents south and cause both
> > a huge change in tempratures and climate here and all over Europe.
> > That in turn affects farming, transport, etc.
> > Now I for one don't care whether this comes from US emissions or
> > Indians wearing one shoe (I got the point even if the responder
> > didn't) . For whatever reason, the Earth is warming up. For whatever
> > reason, that will mean real hardship for EVERYONE. Including the North
> > American hemisphere.Not even the American military can do anything
> > about this one.
> > So for that reason I say that anything we can do to ameliorate the
> > problem will help. I think we should stop blaming socialists, fascists
> > and capitalists for it and start to think of ways to imoprove our
> > futures. Stop burying your heads in the sand and start to think of
> > alternative energy sources. Hey you capitalists...there is billions to
> > be made there. Instead of arguing in the sandbox, go and invest in
> > biofuels. Start to build wind turbines. Start to build nuclear energy
> > power stations. Why not? Why doggedly stick to the old methods of
> > creating energy and keep feeeding those Arabs you hate so much? Why
> > not try to bypass the hold the Middle East has on Western develoment
> > and create your own energy? I would have thought this was a golden
> > opportunity to cut loose.
> > What really worries me is those who deny the importance of this and
> > who, instead of trying to make sure the worst doesn't happen, sit at
> > their computers and pretend it is someone else's conspiratorial plot
> > (so that if we can establish THAT, we can then forget that it is
> > happening) deny that warming will neeed to be addressed. When that
> > kind of attitude is applied to a living (potential) enemy, it is
> > called appeasement. I defy you to say it isn't happening when you are
> > paddling for your lives in a canoe with your children and
> > grandchildren aboard.
>
> > Oh dear the GW kooks are having a field day. Christ on a bike, in case you
> > have lived underground all your life it's that big yellow thing up in the
> > Sky that's causing climate change. It's called the Sun. It has been doing
> > what it's doing for the last 4.5 billion years. It's been causing climate
> > change here on Earth for millions, possibly billions of years as well, ffs,
> > get a grip.
>
> (hysterical, uninformed blubbering snipped)
>
> Only nitwits like you use debunked junk science to make their points.
>
> Debunking the Urban Legends of Climate Change
> Some Frequently Heard Arguments from Climate Skeptics and Why They're
> Wrong (or
> Simply Irrelevant)
> By Frances Moore, Research Associate, The Climate Institute
>
> Legend 1 - Climate change is happening but is caused by solar
> variations beyond
> human control.
>
> The most apparent variations in solar intensity are linked to the 11-
> year
> sunspot cycle. Satellite observations indicate that solar intensity
> only varies
> by around 0.1% or about 0.24 W per m2 over one cycle. As a result, the
> timing
> and amount of change in solar radiation are unable to account for the
> large and
> steady increase in temperature since 1970.
> It has also been hypothesized that the sun varies on longer timescales
> than the
> 11-year sunspot cycle. However, reconstructions of the long-term
> variations in
> solar activity over the last 400 years are only able to explain a
> small
> fraction of the warming observed in the industrial period. Find out
> more here.
>
> Figure 1. This diagram shows how the modeled effects of natural
> phenomena such
> as variations in solar intensity or volcanic emissions (shown by the
> blue band
> - a mean of multiple model simulations) are unable to explain the
> steady rise
> in temperature over the last forty years (shown by the black curve).
> Adding in
> the effects of anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gasses and
> aerosols to the
> models (red band) provides a very good reproduction of the observed
> temperature
> changes over the 20th century. (Meehl et al., 2004).
>
> The cooling of the stratosphere (the part of the atmosphere between 10
> and 20
> km from the surface) that has accompanied the recent warming of the
> surface is
> a 'fingerprint' of the effects of an increase in greenhouse gas
> concentrations.
> If warming were caused by an increase in solar radiation, warming of
> both the
> stratosphere as well as the lower atmosphere and surface would be
> expected,
> which is not what has been observed.
>
> http://www.climate.org/topics/climate/debunk-climate-myths.shtml

Good facts.  Now the rightard will reply by sticking his fingers in
his ears and going "NO IT'S NOT NYAHH NYAHH NYAHH NO NO NO..."